Maine advances legislation restoring net metering

The Maine state legislature has voted to advance a bill that would amend the state's statute governing the net metering of small distributed renewable energy projects. If enacted into law, the amendment would reverse regulatory changes imposed in 2017 that reduced the value of net energy billing to participating customers.

Maine has allowed customers with distributed renewable energy generation to use the power they produce to offset their electricity bill since the 1980s. In 2017, the Maine Public Utilities Commission amended its rules governing net energy billing to reduce the amount of power that a customer could net against its electric utility bill. The Commission did this by inventing a concept called "gross metering," which allowed electric utilities to collect charges even for power generated and consumed on-site in real time, while requiring participating customers to install a second meter.

The "gross metering" concept was controversial for a variety of reasons, including the fact that it deterred customer adoption of solar power and other distributed renewables (by adding costs while cutting compensation), and the fact that for the first time ever it allowed utilities to collect charges from customers for power produced and consumed entirely on the customer's premises even where that power never went on utility grid facilities.  The Commission later exempted most medium and large customers from this policy after finding that the cost of installing an extra meter wasn't justified, but left the gross metering requirements in its Rule Chapter 313 governing net energy billing. In response, in 2019 various state legislators proposed bills that would alter or restore the net energy billing paradigm.

One of these bills has now received favorable votes in both the state House and Senate. LD 91, An Act to Eliminate Gross Metering, was originally sponsored by Representative Seth Berry. It clarifies the statutory definition of net energy billing, which currently defines the concept as "a billing and metering practice under which a customer is billed on the basis of net energy over the billing period taking into account accumulated unused kilowatt-hour credits from the previous billing period." As amended by LD 91, the definition would specifically define "net energy" as the "difference between the kilowatt-hours delivered by a transmission and distribution utility to the customer over a billing period and the kilowatt-hours delivered by the customer to the transmission and distribution utility over the billing period." This clarification removes the Public Utilities Commission's ability to define "net energy" in any other way. LD 91 also directs the Commission to amend its rules "to be substantively equivalent to the rules in effect on January 1, 2017" (that is, before the Commission's 2017 regulatory amendment.)

LD 91 faces additional votes in the state legislature, before it would move to the desk of Governor Janet Mills for her signature. The legislature is also expected to consider other bills affecting net energy billing or expanding incentives for solar development, later this session.

Maine net energy billing rules, 2017 revision

On January 31, 2017, the Maine Public Utilities Commission adopted revisions to its rule chapter 313, governing net energy billing.  Net metering, or net energy billing, is the metering and billing mechanism that Maine and most other states have adopted to promote the development of solar photovoltaic and other distributed renewable energy facilities.  While the Commission first adopted a net energy billing rule in the early 1980s, its 2017 revisions to that rule reduce the benefits of net metering for future projects.  Here's a look at Maine's revised net energy billing rules.

The Commission described its actions in a written order dated March 1, and published its final rule on the same date.   Most notably, the Commission reduced the amount of future generation facility output that can be netted against its transmission and distribution utility bill -- by first introducing, then reducing, a concept called "nettable energy."  Nettable energy is now the entire amount of energy generated by the facility, including the amount consumed by a customer “behind-the-meter”.  This shift -- from netting on a net basis, to netting on a gross basis -- is a significant change in state policy that is unfavorable for behind-the-meter generation.

As before, a net energy billing customer with solar or other eligible generation may offset all of its energy supply bill with its nettable energy.  But the Commission's new rule phases out the former 100% crediting of net energy for transmission and distribution charges.  Depending on the year into which a project is placed in service, the new rule reduces the portion of the "nettable output" -- what counts for netting -- by 10% in each of the next 10 years, reaching 0% T&D crediting for customers that become net energy billing customers after calendar year 2026.  The result is a gradual reduction of the incentive to net energy bill.  (Note that once a customer becomes a net energy billing customer, its rate treatment will generally last for 15 years.  Likewise, existing net energy billing customers may continue to net bill under the previous rule's approach for a 15-year period, after which they could continue to net for supply but not for T&D.)

The Commission also added a section covering renewable energy credit (REC) aggregation.  Section 4 of Chapter 313 provides that new customers in 2018 and after may elect to have the RECs or environmental attributes of project power be aggregated by their local investor-owned utility for sale into the regional market, with the proceeds returned to participating customers.  The Commission described its decision to include a REC aggregation program as "an effort to obtain on an optional basis a value stream that is not currently being monetized."  If small renewable projects would qualify for RECs, but are either not doing so or are not selling the RECs, REC aggregation options may allow some projects to connect with the market.  On the other hand, by selling the RECs, the project owner or power consumer cannot claim to have consumed green electricity, so there are tradeoffs.

The Commission did not change some other aspects of the rule, such as maximum project size (660 kW) or its limit on the number of accounts or meters permissible under a single net energy billing arrangement (10).  It noted, "Fundamental changes to NEB in Maine and promotional programs for larger renewable and community solar projects are the purview of the Legislature as a matter of State energy policy."

Based on a list of legislative requests, the state legislature will consider at least 12 bills relating to solar energy in its 2017 session.

On March 10, the Commission published a Frequently Asked Questions document covering the Chapter 313 net metering rules.  The FAQ provides answers to 10 questions, ranging from why the Commission changed the rule, to providing specific examples of how much nettable energy a customer would be able to claim depending on the year in which its project was placed in service.

US Supreme Court upholds wholesale demand response

The Supreme Court of the United States has issued an opinion upholding regional electricity grid operators' ability to operate wholesale demand response programs under federal authority.  In that opinion, FERC v. Electric Power Supply Assn., the Supreme Court reversed a lower court's decision invalidating the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's regulation of electricity demand response.   While further evolution of demand response will continue, the Supreme Court's 6-to-2 ruling puts regional wholesale demand response programs back on surer footing after the uncertainty injected by the lower court's previous ruling.  A grid portfolio including some degree of demand response can provide beneficial environmental, reliability, and economic effects compared to pure generation.  It appears relatively more likely that existing regional wholesale demand response programs may continue to operate under federal authority, and relatively less likely that a new state-driven demand response paradigm will arise.

As described in the Supreme Court opinion, wholesale electricity demand response programs pay consumers for commitments to reduce their consumption of electricity during peak demand periods or other times of scarcity or high prices.  For about 15 years, wholesale market operators have increasingly adopted wholesale demand response programs, with the blessing of both Congress and the FERC.  In 2011, the FERC issued its Order No. 745, establishing a rule requiring market operators to pay the same price to cost-effective demand response providers for conserving energy as to generators for producing it. 

But that order was challenged by an association of generators, among others.  In May 2014, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling in Electric Power Supply Association v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission vacating Order No. 745.  Its chief logic was that FERC lacked authority to issue the order on jurisdictional grounds -- because in the lower court's view, Order No. 745 directly regulates the retail electric market.  Under the Federal Power Act, FERC is authorized to regulate "the sale of electric energy at wholesale in interstate commerce," but cannot regulate "any other sale" (i.e. any retail sale) of electricity.

But today's Supreme Court ruling held that the Federal Power Act does provide FERC with the authority to regulate wholesale market operators' compensation of demand response bids.  The Court divided its analysis of this point in three parts.

First, the Supreme Court held that the practices at issue directly affect wholesale rates.  In the Court's words, "Wholesale demand response is all about reducing wholesale rates; so too the rules and practices that determine how those programs operate."

Second, the Supreme Court noted that FERC has not regulated retail sales.  "Here, every aspect of FERC's regulatory plan happens exclusively on the wholesale market and governs exclusively that market's rules.  The Commission's justifications for regulating demand response are likewise only about improving the wholesale market."  Putting the first and second sets of conclusions together, the Court found that the rule established by Order No. 745 complies with the plain terms of the Federal Power Act.

Third, the Court noted that adopting a contrary view would conflict with the core purposes of the Federal Power Act: "The FPA should not be read, against its clear terms, to halt a practice that so evidently enables FERC to fulfill its statutory duties of holding down prices and enhancing reliability in the wholesale energy market."

The Supreme Court also addressed an alternative holding by the D.C. Circuit Court that the Order No. 745 compensation scheme is arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act.  The Supreme Court noted that its "important but limited role" in reviewing FERC's decision "is to ensure that FERC engaged in reasoned decisionmaking."  Noting FERC's detailed explanation of its choice to compensate demand response providers at LMP, the same price paid to generators, and its lengthy responses to contrary views, the Supreme Court held that "FERC's serious and careful discussion of the issue satisfies the arbitrary and capricious standard."

Justice Kagan delivered the Court's opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor.   Justice Scalia filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Thomas joined, noting his belief that the Federal Power Act prohibits the FERC from regulating the demand response of "retail purchasers of power."  Justice Alito did not participate in the case.

The case now returns to the D.C. Circuit for "further proceedings consistent with this opinion." If Order No. 745 stands and FERC retains jurisdiction over the compensation paid to wholesale demand response market participants, it seems likely that existing regional wholesale demand response programs will continue to operate under federal authority.  As the Supreme Court found, these wholesale demand response programs can provide significant consumer savings when properly implemented.  How will demand response continue to evolve in the wake of FERC v. EPSA?  How does this decision reshape the boundary between wholesale (federal) and retail (state) jurisdictions?  What's next for demand response?

Resources on Clean Power Plan

Yesterday President Obama announced his administration's "Clean Power Plan," the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's new regulations limiting power plant carbon emissions under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act.

EPA's final Clean Power Plan rule establishes emission guidelines for states to follow in developing plans to reduce greenhouse gas  emissions from existing fossil fuel-fired electric generating units. 

Here are some quick resources I've compiled as a guide to the Clean Power Plan and its release:

• Clean Power Plan Final Rule (PDF) (1560 pages)
• EPA's Regulatory Impact Analysis of the final rule 
• EPA's press release,  "Obama Administration Takes Historic Action on Climate Change/Clean Power Plan to protect public health, spur clean energy investments and strengthen U.S. leadership."
• EPA's overall Clean Power Plan website
• EPA's "key topics" handout
• EPA, DOE, FERC memorandum on coordination in implementing the Clean Power Plan
• EPA fact sheets:
• Overview of the Clean Power Plan: Cutting Carbon Pollution from Power Plants 
• Clean Power Plan: Key Changes and Improvements
• By the Numbers: Cutting Carbon Pollution from Power Plants
• Benefits of a Cleaner, More Efficient Power Sector
• Components of the Clean Power Plan: Setting State Goals to Cut Carbon Pollution
• The Role of States: States Decide How to Meet Their Goal
• Built on a Solid Legal and Scientific Foundation
• Clean Energy Now and in the Future
• Clean Energy Incentive Program
• Keeping Energy Affordable and Reliable
• Resources about the 2014 draft Clean Power Plan:
• A look at EPA's cost/benefit analysis
• Early questions about the Clean Power Plan
• FERC plans conferences about the Clean Power Plan
  

FERC Order 800 eases hydropower regulations

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has issued an order streamlining its regulations for some small hydropower projects.  FERC Order No. 800 conforms the Commission's regulations to the Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act of 2013.  Between Order 800 and the Hydropower Efficiency Act, regulatory processes for developing some small hydropower projects have recently become easier.

Hydropower is one of the nation's most abundant sources of renewable energy -- and yet about 97 percent of the estimated 80,000 dams in the United States do not generate electricity.  While not all are great candidates for hydropower, some non-power dam sites offer significant opportunities to generate renewable electricity with minimal incremental environmental impact.

Congress had these dams in mind when it enacted the Hydropower Efficiency Act on August 9, 2013.  To encourage the use of these dams for electric generation, the Act aims to reduce the costs and regulatory burden on project developers during the project study and licensing stages.  In particular, the Act amended previous statutory provisions covering both preliminary permits and projects that are exempt from licensing.  These statutory changes prompted FERC to update its regulations to conform to the Hydropower Efficiency Act.

Order No. 800 formalizes the Commission's compliance procedures in its revised regulations on preliminary permits, small conduit hydroelectric facilities, and small hydroelectric power projects, and in a new subpart on qualifying conduit hydropower facilities.  Key changes include:

• New regulations recognize the Commission's new statutory authority to extend a preliminary permit once for not more than two additional years, allowing permittees up to 5 total years to complete their feasibility studies without facing possible competition for the site from others.
• Exempt small conduit hydroelectric facilities may now be located on federal lands, and all exempt small conduit hydroelectric facilities may now have an installed capacity of up to 40 megawatts.  Previously, non-municipal small conduit exemptions were limited to 15 megawatts.
• Exempt small hydroelectric power project facilities may now have an installed capacity of up to 10 megawatts.
• Qualifying conduit hydropower facilities, which do not require licensure under the Federal Power Act but do require the filing with FERC of a notice of intent to construct, are now covered under the regulations.

While several of these categories of facility appear similar, each is defined separately by statute.

• A small conduit hydroelectric facility, as defined in section 30 of the Federal Power Act, is an existing or proposed hydroelectric facility that utilizes for electric power generation the hydroelectric potential of a conduit, or any tunnel, canal, pipeline, aqueduct, flume, ditch, or similar manmade water conveyance that is operated for the distribution of water for agricultural, municipal, or industrial consumption and not primarily for the generation of electricity.
• A small hydroelectric power project, as defined in the Public Utilities Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA), is a project that utilizes for electric generation the water potential of either an existing non-federal dam or a natural water feature (e.g., natural lake, water fall, gradient of a stream, etc.) without the need for a dam or man-made impoundment.
• A qualifying conduit hydropower facility, as defined in the Hydropower Efficiency Act, is a facility that meets the following qualifying criteria: (1) the facility would be constructed, operated, or maintained for the generation of electric power using only the hydroelectric potential of a non-federally owned conduit, without the need for a dam or impoundment; (2) the facility would have a total installed capacity that does not exceed 5 MW; and (3) the facility is not licensed under, or exempted from, the license requirements in Part I of the FPA on or before the date of enactment of the Hydropower Efficiency Act (i.e., August 9, 2013).

In Order 800, the Commission is merely formalizing several practices it has already adopted since the enactment of the Hydropower Efficiency Act.  For example, the Commission has issued two-year extensions to preliminary permit holders, granted a small conduit exemption on federal lands, and issued conduit facility determinations on whether proposed projects are qualifying conduit hydropower facilities.  Nevertheless, the Act and Order No. 800 work together to offer an easier regulatory path for developers of small hydropower projects without new dams.